Who do you think should make scientific and health decisions in the US?
Breaking News - Who do you want making decisions about healthcare or other scientific endeavors (such as climate change) for you, your family, your community and our country?
A) One aging, mentally unstable “businessman” (Trump)
B) One unhinged, conspiracy minded lawyer (RFK Jr)
C) Political appointees loyal only to Trump, or
D) Loads of practicing scientists and doctors?
If your answer is D), keep reading...
What is happening? The Trump administration is attempting to impose its autocracy on science in the US through budgeting rules circumventing the court decisions last year. Much more information is below…after learning more...
Take Action (ASAP but no later than about July 12): Write your Senators and Congress members and tell everyone you know and love to do the same. Anyone that has a stake in the future of science in this country which includes interests in healthcare, climate change, epidemiology, astrophysics, genomics and pandemics should be very concerned.
"The public comment period closes approximately July 13, 2026Â (45 days from May 29 publication). Comments must be submitted to regulations.gov, Docket OMB-2026-0034.Â
Scientists, universities, scientific societies, patient advocacy organizations, state governments, and members of the public all have standing to comment. Given the scope of what is proposed, the breadth and volume of opposition in the formal record will matter both legally and politically."
For more information on submitting comments (it is long, just scroll down to the most relevant sections for your interest or background): https://elizabethginexi.substack.com/p/what-we-need-to-do-next-ombs-proposed.
I posted below some additional information about what is happening, but if your preferred method is to attend a zoom, Stand Up for Science is having an emergency meeting next Tuesday, June 2nd. Register here:
https://events.standupforscience.net/stand-up-for-science/emergency-science-meeting
More on what is happening...
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), headed by Russell Vought - yes, that Russell Vought, the architect of Project 2025,  just released a proposed on federal spending rule changes.  The OMB is trying to do what the courts told Trump last year that he could not do which is terminate tens of thousands of grants based on politics (rather than science). Here are 2 links if you want to read more. I’m posting the summary from the second link.
https://elizabethginexi.substack.com/p/summary-of-key-changes-in-ombs-proposed
Below is the summary from Elizabeth Ginexi’s substack discussing the OMB rule changes proposed. She is a former NIH program official which means she is intimately acquainted with healthcare science, governement rules, and grants processes.
SUMMARY
"Since World War II, the United States built the world’s preeminent scientific enterprise on a straightforward principle: federal dollars should fund the best science, as determined by independent experts rather than politicians.
Peer review, open competition, and institutional autonomy were the pillars of that system. [The] proposed rule dismantles all three, simultaneously, government-wide, and binding on every federal agency by October 1, 2026.
What OMB is proposing is not a reform of grants management. It is a complete political control apparatus layered over every stage of the federal science funding lifecycle.
[SKF comment: here are the impacts of the changes]:
• Before a competition opens, every program must be designed to align with the President’s policy priorities, not scientific need, statutory mandate, or expert consensus.
• When opportunities are announced, agencies can restrict who is eligible, and the agency head can exempt solicitations from public posting under a broad national interest exception.
• When applications are reviewed, political appointees must personally evaluate every discretionary grant. Peer review is explicitly reduced to advisory status. Appointees are forbidden from deferring to scientific experts. [SKF comment - this is also essentially a backdoor to massive corruption potentially - think the contract to paint the reflecting pool as one example].
• When awards are made, grants can be conditioned on compliance with an undefined “Gold Standard Science” standard, and institutions can be disqualified based on their affiliations or the political character of their prior work.
• During the research itself, scientists cannot attend conferences, join professional societies, subscribe to journals, or publish in peer-reviewed journals without express agency pre-approval. Each of those approvals can simply be withheld.
• At any moment, an active grant, including a multi-year award already mid-project, can be terminated because a political appointee decides it no longer aligns with agency priorities. No finding of misconduct is required.
• When results are ready to share, publication costs are presumptively unallowable, and any public communication that could be labeled issue advocacy on a sensitive topic puts the entire award at risk.
The rule is also notable for what it cites as justification. The preamble [to the OMB rule] relies heavily on Heritage Foundation reports, partisan Senate committee documents, and White House fact sheets, rather than independent scientific or administrative assessments. It characterizes decades of peer-reviewed research on climate, public health, equity, [SKF comment: these might be “sensitive topics” and therefore either not funded and scientists are NOT allowed to talk to the public about results from studies in these areas] and international collaboration as “woke,” “neo-Marxist,” “anti-American,” or “divisive ideology.” It treats the scientific community’s professional infrastructure, including conferences, journals, international partnerships, and open access publishing, as wasteful overhead to be controlled or eliminated.
Congress has repeatedly appropriated funds for science agencies with the expectation that those funds would be administered through merit-based, expert-driven processes insulated from political interference. This rule attempts to override that expectation administratively, without new legislation, by repurposing OMB’s grants management authority as a vehicle for political control of science."
SKF comment: If anyone wants to learn more about how money (awards) are decided and distributed to scientists, the international nature of science, why investing in science in the US is a great investment, or more about the impact that is proposed, please reach out. I’d be happy to answer any and all questions.
SKF comment: If you want to get a sense of what practicing science is like, read or listen to Project Hail Mary. The movie is also great but doesn’t quite bring out the typical problem solving nature as the book.
Stephanie Florio, PhD
Currently specializing in developing new treatments for chronic pain